<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Entertainment Literacy</title>
	<atom:link href="http://caughtinplay.com/entertainment-literacy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://caughtinplay.com/entertainment-literacy/</link>
	<description>the culture of entertainment</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:26:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter Stromberg</title>
		<link>http://caughtinplay.com/entertainment-literacy/comment-page-1/#comment-347</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter Stromberg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jan 2010 15:14:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://caughtinplay.com/?p=341#comment-347</guid>
		<description>Given your interest in (slightly disguised) versions of utopia, I’m not surprised that you bring up the example of Pandora.  In the culture of entertainment, the most effective way to argue for anything (including not destroying the planet we live on) is to convert that which you want to argue for into entertainment.  

I’m not sure I completely follow the latter part of your comment, however—which is not an ironic way of saying I disagree, rather I want to know more.  You suggest that converting nature into a utopian form in fact backfires by perpetuating a false dichotomy between civilization and nature.  Have you written more about this?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Given your interest in (slightly disguised) versions of utopia, I’m not surprised that you bring up the example of Pandora.  In the culture of entertainment, the most effective way to argue for anything (including not destroying the planet we live on) is to convert that which you want to argue for into entertainment.  </p>
<p>I’m not sure I completely follow the latter part of your comment, however—which is not an ironic way of saying I disagree, rather I want to know more.  You suggest that converting nature into a utopian form in fact backfires by perpetuating a false dichotomy between civilization and nature.  Have you written more about this?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Duff</title>
		<link>http://caughtinplay.com/entertainment-literacy/comment-page-1/#comment-346</link>
		<dc:creator>Duff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jan 2010 10:53:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://caughtinplay.com/?p=341#comment-346</guid>
		<description>The planet Pandora in the movie Avatar is a great example of romantic realism with regards to &quot;saving the environment.&quot; Most nature documentaries portray the natural world as larger-than-life, as if the only things worth saving are the spectacular. This frames nature as valuable solely for its entertainment value, and ironically also fuels the civilization vs. nature false dichotomy even in films designed to persuade audiences to a conservationist agenda.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The planet Pandora in the movie Avatar is a great example of romantic realism with regards to &#8220;saving the environment.&#8221; Most nature documentaries portray the natural world as larger-than-life, as if the only things worth saving are the spectacular. This frames nature as valuable solely for its entertainment value, and ironically also fuels the civilization vs. nature false dichotomy even in films designed to persuade audiences to a conservationist agenda.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
